Tuesday, October 25, 2011

The crime of Collective Punishment is described on the website for Mike Haas' book, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes. Here, we will look at the specific legal basis for charging perpetrators as war criminals for Collective Punishment , and list sources reporting relevant U.S. actions in Afghanistan.

Viewers of this page are strongly encouraged to contribute comments and additional sources in the comments section!

If the American public knew the nature of the crimes that its government was committing in Afghanistan, could it possibly sit still and not force an end to the war, and the removal of U.S. military, intelligence, and contractors from Afghanistan?

LEGAL BASISTHIS TOPIC is described on the website for Mike Haas' book, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes.

Virtual Antiwar University (VAU) 101 focuses on eight categories of U.S. war crimes, selected from Mike Haas' book, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes.

The crime of Discrimination Based on Nationality, Race, or Religion is described on the website for Mike Haas' book, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes. Here, we will look at the specific legal basis for charging perpetrators as war criminals for Discrimination Based on Nationality, Race, or Religion, and list sources reporting relevant U.S. actions in Afghanistan.

Viewers of this page are strongly encouraged to contribute comments and additional sources in the comments section!

If the American public knew the nature of the crimes that its government was committing in Afghanistan, could it possibly sit still and not force an end to the war, and the removal of U.S. military, intelligence, and contractors from Afghanistan?

Virtual Antiwar University (VAU) 101 focuses on eight categories of U.S. war crimes, selected from Mike Haas' book, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes.

The biggest idea coming out of the 2013 Drone Summit? We will only deal successfully with the
crimes being committed using drones when we understand them as part of
the much larger war against communities of color . . . .

The crime of Failure to Prevent Torture is described on the website for Mike Haas' book, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes. Here, we will look at the specific legal basis for charging perpetrators as war criminals for Failure to Prevent Torture, and list sources reporting relevant U.S. actions in Afghanistan.

Viewers of this page are strongly encouraged to contribute comments and additional sources in the comments section!

If the American public knew the nature of the crimes that its government was committing in Afghanistan, could it possibly sit still and not force an end to the war, and the removal of U.S. military, intelligence, and contractors from Afghanistan?

LEGAL BASIS
The crime of Failure to Prevent Torture is described on the website for Mike Haas' book, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes.

Virtual Antiwar University (VAU) 101 focuses on eight categories of U.S. war crimes, selected from Mike Haas' book, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes.

The crime of Torture is described on the website for Mike Haas' book, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes. Here, we will look at the specific legal basis for charging perpetrators as war criminals for Torture, and list sources reporting relevant U.S. actions in Afghanistan.

Viewers of this page are strongly encouraged to contribute comments and additional sources in the comments section!

If the American public knew the nature of the crimes that its government was committing in Afghanistan, could it possibly sit still and not force an end to the war, and the removal of U.S. military, intelligence, and contractors from Afghanistan?

LEGAL BASIS
The crime of Torture is described on the website for Mike Haas' book, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes.

REPORTS FROM AFGHANISTAN
Read this important blog post on U.S. complicity in torture in Afghanistan as captured prisoners are turned over to prisons that are known to torture them. "[E]ven though our coalition partners had already stopped transferring detainees to Afghans known to use torture in interrogations, the US continued doing so until last month."

Virtual Antiwar University (VAU) 101 focuses on eight categories of U.S. war crimes, selected from Mike Haas' book, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes.

It is perhaps the signal achievement of the film "Beneath the
Blindfold" that it
portrays four different survivors, each of whose experience of torture
was distinct from that of any of the others, and each of whom has an
otherwise unique personality, and yet each makes clear that they share a
long-lasting trauma. One leaves the film with a deeply-felt sense of
the lasting trauma caused by torture of any kind.

Chicago was the site of major protests against U.S. detention practices
in Guantanamo, as well as in Bagram, other prisons throughout
Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the world, on and around January 11, 2012.
We called for an end to indefinite detention, unfair trials, and
torture.

The crime of Outrages Upon Personal Dignity is described on the website for Mike Haas' book, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes. Here, we will look at the specific legal basis for charging perpetrators as war criminals for Outrages Upon Personal Dignity, and list sources reporting relevant U.S. actions in Afghanistan.

Viewers of this page are strongly encouraged to contribute comments and additional sources in the comments section!

If the American public knew the nature of the crimes that its government was committing in Afghanistan, could it possibly sit still and not force an end to the war, and the removal of U.S. military, intelligence, and contractors from Afghanistan?

LEGAL BASIS
The crime of Outrages Upon Personal Dignity is described on the website for Mike Haas' book, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes.

Of the array of war crimes considered as part of VAU Afghanistan 101, this particular one challenges all of our platitudes about being "civilized." Do we really need to argue over whether it is an outrage on human dignity to engage in sexual humiliation? To taunt someone on account of and by way of their religion? To threaten them with attack by an animal? Not to mention the infliction of physical pain . . . .

REPORTS FROM AFGHANISTAN

It was outrages upon personal dignity that first shocked a broad swath of the American public into confronting our country's criminal behavior: Abu Ghraib.

Is there any way that we can begin to estimate the magnitude of the crimes that have been committed in-between? More important, do we think for one minute that the commanders and leaders who have fomented, welcomed, and covered up ALL of these outrages have been held responsible?

Virtual Antiwar University (VAU) 101 focuses on eight categories of U.S. war crimes, selected from Mike Haas' book, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes.

"This act was aimed at suppressing the power of the organisation by
demoralising the activists, but turned out to be counter-productive as
it undermined the moral authority of the government. The Act was viewed
as violating basic human rights, not only of the suffragettes but of
other prisoners. The Act's nickname of Cat and Mouse Act, referring to
the way the government seemed to play with prisoners as a cat may with a
captured mouse, underlined how the cruelty of repeated releases and
re-imprisonments turned the suffragettes from targets of scorn to
objects of sympathy."

Here, we will look at the specific legal basis for charging perpetrators as war criminals for Failure of Commanding Officers to Ensure That Subordinates Understand Geneva Convention Obligations Regarding the Conduct of Warfare, and list sources reporting relevant U.S. actions in Afghanistan.

Viewers of this page are strongly encouraged to contribute comments and additional sources in the comments section!

If the American public knew the nature of the crimes that its government was committing in Afghanistan, could it possibly sit still and not force an end to the war, and the removal of U.S. military, intelligence, and contractors from Afghanistan?

I recently re-read Mike Haas' book. What struck me was that the Bush Administration adopted a policy of saying, in essence, "we don't think the existing rules of war should apply anymore, and we expect that view to be ratified in American law, and we're going to just go ahead based on that expectation." In other words, they openly proceeded in a course that led to crimes of many kinds, without apology, because they thought they would be affirmed in their behavior.

One consequence has been that, unfortunately, although the United States has not changed its legal adherence to the Geneva Conventions and other laws governing war, something just as bad has happened. We have failed to prosecute the crimes that have been committed. In effect, we have affirmed by acquiescence that we accept the Bush position that the old laws no longer apply.

I hasten to add that this has all continued -- and accelerated -- under the Obama administration!

A second consequence has been that leaders and commanders failed to inform those under their command of their obligations under the Geneva Conventions. How could it be otherwise? Having asserted to the American people that the Geneva Conventions don't apply, what sense would it make to make an effort to inform the troops of their Geneva Conventions obligations?

Both of these consequences place us -- you and me -- in grave moral peril, and the two consequences are deeply entwined.

REPORTS FROM AFGHANISTAN
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld issued a memo to combatant commanders that told them that Geneva Convention obligations with respect to prisoners did not exist in Afghanistan:

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld determines that Al Qaida and Taliban detainees "are not entitled to prisoner of war status for purposes of the Geneva Conventions of 1949." However, detained individuals are to be treated "humanely, and to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Geneva Conventions of 1949." (Source: Jan 19, 2002 - Secretary of Defense Memo for Combatant Commanders, "Status of Taliban and Al Qaida".)

Virtual Antiwar University (VAU) 101 focuses on eight categories of U.S. war crimes, selected from Mike Haas' book, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes.

Eric
Holder addressed a group of Northwestern Law students and others.
Afterward one audience member summed up the speech as he left: "He
pretty much said he can kill anyone he wants." The details of that
speech will turn you more topsy-turvy than anything Alice experienced
when she ventured through the looking glass.

[UPDATE: As reported in the Chicago Tribune in its June 19, 2012 article entitled U.N. investigator decries U.S. use of killer drones, Christof Heyns, U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has said, "The Special Rapporteur again requests the Government to clarify the rules that it considers to cover targeted killings ... (and) reiterates his predecessor's recommendation that the government specify the bases for decisions to kill rather than capture 'human targets' and whether the State in which the killing takes places has given consent."]

The crime of Extrajudicial Executions is described on the website for Mike Haas' book, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes. Here, we will look at the specific legal basis for charging perpetrators as war criminals for Extrajudicial Executions, and list sources reporting relevant U.S. actions in Afghanistan.

Viewers of this page are strongly encouraged to contribute comments and additional sources in the comments section!

If the American public knew the nature of the crimes that its government was committing in Afghanistan, could it possibly sit still and not force an end to the war, and the removal of U.S. military, intelligence, and contractors from Afghanistan?

LEGAL BASIS
The crime of Extrajudicial Executions is described on the website for Mike Haas' book, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes.

Why does the law prohibit extrajudicial execution? In my view, the ultimate reason is that extrajudicial execution always undermines confidence in the functioning of all law. Thus, it is even simpler and less controversial than moral arguments. Consider:

EVEN IF a person is objectively "guilty" of some crime, i.e. no organized finding of fact is necessary (a condition which, if you think about it, is in fact virtually impossible to meet -- do we really know the facts before we establish the facts?); and . . .

EVEN IF the death penalty is accepted as an appropriate penalty for a crime of which the person is known objectively to be guilty (a condition which is rapidly becoming inoperable); in other words . . .

EVEN IF the machinery of state power is operating from a basis of truth and legitimate authority, still . . .

THE PROBLEM REMAINS that extrajudicial execution lacks due process, and thus has little if any chance of being seen as legitimate in the eyes of the public (where "the public" inevitably consists of any and all people who lack some kind of magical safeguards against being victims of state power).

All war crimes have the effect of de-legitimizing the entire basis of the State; extrajudicial execution de-legitimizes the State with extreme speed and thoroughness.

Virtual Antiwar University (VAU) 101 focuses on eight categories of U.S. war crimes, selected from Mike Haas' book, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes.

If
the public will join us in asking the question "Who decides?" about
drone executions, I believe they will rapidly come to realize that they
are utterly dissatisfied with what the government is saying.

Eric Holder addressed a group of Northwestern Law students and others. Afterward one audience member summed up the speech as he left: "He pretty much said he can kill anyone he wants." The details of that speech will turn you more topsy-turvy than anything Alice experienced when she ventured through the looking glass.

By now, everyone knows about the New York Times article describing Barack Obama's personal administration of drone killing around the world. What few people are willing to face up to is that Obama 2012 partisans actually see this as a way to get a lot of Americans to like Obama: "This is the candidate; you MUST support him!"

Yet another Iranian scientist has been assassinated. In an environment in which the U.S. is beating the drums of war against Iran, we do not have the option of closing our eyes and acting as if we don't know what's going on.

The crime of Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians is described on the website for Mike Haas' book, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes. Here, we will look at the specific legal basis for charging perpetrators as war criminals for Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians, and list sources reporting relevant U.S. actions in Afghanistan.

Viewers of this page are strongly encouraged to contribute comments and additional sources in the comments section!

If the American public knew the nature of the crimes that its government was committing in Afghanistan, could it possibly sit still and not force an end to the war, and the removal of U.S. military, intelligence, and contractors from Afghanistan?

In my view, the important point for ordinary American citizens to understand is that a state of warfare does not give the warring parties the right to harm civilians. We may be confused by the fact that the U.S. has famously engaged in war against civilians without being tried for war crimes - particularly in the fire bombing of Tokyo and the use of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It should be remembered that Curtis LeMay, the author of those campaigns, remarked, "If we lose, we'll be tried as war criminals." Willfully harming civilians constitutes a war crime.

REPORTS FROM AFGHANISTAN
A listing of atrocities against civilians in Afghanistan is provided at the Voices for Creative Non-Violence website. The most recent is from August, 2011: "Another NATO air strike has killed a number of civilians today in the Logar Province. The attack, which took place shortly after midnight, came after a clash between NATO troops on the ground and Taliban in the Baraki Barak District, and left six civilians dead. This latest attack came after the firefight with Taliban but was termed a “retaliation” attack. That the attack retaliated against a civilian home and killed an entire family appears to them only a minor detail." (See also report at Antiwar.com.)

It's instructive to scroll to the bottom of the page and start with the first account recorded by VCNV (from April 2009, obviously far from the first such occurence of violence against civilians in Afghanistan!): "U.S. forces were positioned on the rooftop opposite the home of Brigadier Artillery officer Awal Khan. In a night raid, U.S. forces burst into Awal Khan’s home. Awal Khan was away from home. His family members ran to the rooftop, believing that robbers had entered the home. When they emerged on their rooftop, U.S. forces on the opposite roof opened fire, killing Awal Khan’s wife, his brother, his 17 year-old daughter Nadia, and his fifteen year-old son, Aimal and his infant son, born just a week earlier."

Now ask, "Does this occurrence constitute a war crime, or just a sad mistake?"

Then read the next one up the page, from May 2009: "Mainstream media reports estimate that between 86 and 140 people, mostly children, died in a US air attack. According to Reuters, only 22 of the victims were adult males."

Ask again, "Does this occurrence -- particularly taken in combination with the previous occurence(s) -- constitute a war crime, or just a sad mistake?"

Now read the next one ... and the next ... and the next ....

How many occurrences does it take before you are sure that the U.S. is engaging in a pattern of war crimes?

Virtual Antiwar University (VAU) 101 focuses on eight categories of U.S. war crimes, selected from Mike Haas' book, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes.

A
September 5, 2013, U.S. drone strike in Pakistan killed six people -
including Sangeen Zadran -- a "senior militant commander" who was
"implicated in a long-running kidnapping drama involving an American
soldier."

"When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory. But these things happened. The facts cannot be denied. The question now is what the United States of America, and the international community, is prepared to do about it. Because what
happened to those people -- to those children -- is not only a
violation of international law, it’s also a danger to our security."

It struck me that we could tackle a single topic each week -- on #AfghanistanTuesday! -- and over the course of eight weeks or so we could try out some teach-in materials. In other words, both learn and contribute to the development of a curriculum.

In thinking about what would be worth covering, I remembered the urging of my friends at Voices for Creative Non-Violence: start with the experience of the victims of war. Too often we focus on the cynical arguments about the costs to ourselves, but isn't the real question the harm we are doing to others?

It then occurred to me that perhaps the right framework would be to look at eight different categories of U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan (of which detention is one). This would allow me to make use of some research I've already been doing.

If the American public knew the nature of the crimes that its government was committing in Afghanistan, could it possibly sit still and not force an end to the war, and the removal of U.S. military, intelligence, and contractors from Afghanistan?

It would be good if we could present this whole collection of learning
opportunities -- this "virtual antiwar university" -- in a way that
captures the public's imagination. Particularly since the occupy
movement has done so much to mobilize people, to wake them up, and to
lead them. Is there an opportunity to elevate this into something bigger than
isolated teaching events? How could we make something like this happen?

Can there be any doubt that Obama and his administration, who think it
is their right to wage war in secret, kill anyone they want to, and
destroy whole societies, took their cues from Kissinger and Nixon and
their "Imperial (and criminal) Presidency"?

The crime of Extrajudicial Execution is described on the website for Mike Haas' book, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes.
Here, we will look at the specific legal basis for charging
perpetrators as war criminals for Extrajudicial Executions, and list
sources reporting relevant U.S. actions in Afghanistan.

It's time to face the truth. Whatever NATO stood for in the past, today
NATO aids and abets the aggressive wars and other militarism driven by
the United States. So when you think "NATO," don't think "peace
alliance" -- think "war crimes alliance"!

And even more are needed. Each day brings new revelations and new outrages. Drones ... Pakistan ... Libya ... and on and on ....

U.S./NATO OUT of AFGHANISTAN
Teach-in prior to demonstration on 10th anniversary of the invasion

It would be good if we could present this whole collection of learning opportunities -- this "virtual antiwar university" -- in a way that captures the public's imagination. Particularly since the occupy movement has done so much to mobilize people, to wake them up, and to lead them to ask, "How can I use the months ahead in a way that allows us to come back even stronger in the spring?"

Is there an opportunity to elevate this into something bigger than isolated teaching events? How could we make something like this happen?

Related posts

Virtual Antiwar University (VAU) 101 focuses on eight categories of U.S. war crimes, selected from Mike Haas' book, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes.

"It's not enough to remember this just once a year; it's not enough that we make a single book -- Hiroshima
-- required reading, and never go beyond that. There should be a whole
canon that people study progressively, year by year, to grasp and retain
the horror of this."

Friday, October 21, 2011

Not "how can we get more people to agree that we need to stop these wars" but how do we get more people actively spreading the antiwar message?

One of the things I realized as the #AfghanistanTuesday conversations have progressed, is that everyone needs to be spreading message. Not only that: everyone needs to be spreading the message that everyone needs to be spreading the message!

In other words, the antiwar message needs to be recursive. Only if the message has a high reproduction rate can it go viral and effect real change.

I attempted to achieve this with the concept of the "Tuesdayista" - a person who participates in #AfghanistanTuesday and also gets others to understand the importance of participating (and getting others to understand ((and .... )) ).

But whatever the specific means used to get the message to go viral, we must focus on spreading it! It's all about transmission . . . .

Remember: no one expects you to end war all by yourself; your job is to spread the idea of ending war -- more precisely by "spreading the idea of spreading the idea" of ending war. Everybody can do that!

Related posts

I've realized that when we ask ourselves, "What is it that we hope
people will do?" we must include an element of recursivity: One of the things we want people to do is to involve more people in doing it. In
a way, that element of recursivity -- dare I say "evangelism"? --
defines what it means for people to really become part of a movement.

Tuesdayistas are people who (a) take time each week to participate in a
national (and now global) conversation about ending the war in
Afghanistan; AND (b) help spread the word by reaching out to others (who
will reach out to others (who will reach out to others .... to do the
same!

Is it possible that scripture is telling us that it's no longer
acceptable to passively nod in agreement -- -- to murmur inwardly, "I'm
with you in spirit" -- and then to go back to our other concerns?

Monday, October 17, 2011

The 10th anniversary of the start of the Afghanistan War is behind us, with massive protests in Chicago and elsewhere. Occupy Wall Street has gotten people into the streets in cities across the country and around the world. In short succession, we will confront the 10th anniversary of Guantanamo, the anniversary of the Iraq invasion and the that of the Libyan intervention, the NATO/G8 protests in Chicago, and the 2012 presidential election. And on top of all of this, daily outrages continue, like the Awlaki extrajudicial execution and the introduction of U.S. military "advisors" into Uganda.

But our work with respect to Afghanistan is far from over. Now, more than ever, we need to assemble every week -- in growing numbers -- to lift our voices together in opposition to continued U.S. occupation of Afghanistan.

It may get loud . . . .

To facilitate the discussion, I am assembling links to past #AfghanistanTuesday blog posts and other resources here:

Tuesdayistas are people who (a) take time each week to participate in a
national (and now global) conversation about ending the war in
Afghanistan; AND (b) help spread the word by reaching out to others (who
will reach out to others (who will reach out to others .... to do the
same!

Sunday, October 16, 2011

The fact that Occupy Wall Street bloomed into a global phenomenon in little more than a week, and that it all happened at the beginning of October, 2011 -- coinciding with the 10th anniversary of the Afghanistan War -- has given tremendous hope to everyone who has been working to get the U.S. out of Afghanistan. People are in the streets, talking to each other, and that is how we're going to find answers.

Especially important is the fact that the Occupy movement understands the systemic nature of the problems our country is mired in. And they have a determination to go to the root of those systemic problems. That's essential to the antiwar movement. We don't just have a war problem ... we have a war economy problem!

In my post about the Occupy movement, I pointed out that standing
against U.S. aggression toward Iran was a position that not many people
wanted to take, and that luckily a movement had arisen consisting of
people who were willing to go beyond the conventional wisdom and were
not afraid to take unpopular positions. For me, it boiled down to the
"courage to think different." Today, when people in Gaza are once again being slaughtered by an
Israeli state that operates with the full backing and material support
of the U.S. government, who has the "courage to think different"?
(See Should OWS lead the overthrow of the U.S. support of Israeli crimes? )

If
the Occupy movement has taught me one thing, it is that every time I
hear some person or group of people being described as "different," I
should stop and think. And think again. Would it really be possible for
U.S. leaders to be talking about war with Iran if people here stopped to
think about how different people there aren't?